[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Uday Rama Hattarwad vs The Manager Sait And Company on 6 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5051
MFA No. 102785 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.102785 OF 2014 (MV)
BETWEEN:
UDAY RAMA HATTARWAD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HAMALI WORK,
R/O: NANDAGAD, TQ: KHANAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT
NEW GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT.SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE MANAGER,
SAIT AND COMPANY BUSINESS TRANSPORT,
POONA ANGALORE ROAD (FORT ROAD),
BELGAUM.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.07 10:13:58
+0100 RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SV YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI SB SHAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (ABSENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173(1) OF MV ACT,
AGAINST JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.07.2014, PASSED IN
MVC.NO.2107/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MEMBER MACT-II AND I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM, DISMISSING THE PETITION
FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5051
MFA No. 102785 of 2014
HC-KAR
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 28.07.2004 passed
by MACT-II and I Additional District Judge, Belagavi, ('Tribunal'
for short) in MVC no.2107/2004, this appeal is filed.
2. Smt.Shaila Bellikatti, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by claimant challenging dismissal of claim
petition. It was submitted, at 6:00 a.m., on 14.08.2004, when
claimant was riding pillion on moped no.KA.22/K-6346 along
with rider Suresh Kesarkar on N.H.4A near Honakal Cross, driver
of Lorry no.MEH-5997 going ahead of moped, stopped it
suddenly without signal. Consequently motorcycle dashed
against Lorry leading to claimant sustaining injuries. Despite
treatment he did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning
capacity. Therefore he filed claim petition against owner and
insurer of Lorry under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
('MV Act' for short).
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5051
HC-KAR
3. On contest, wherein claim petition was opposed on
all grounds including negligence of driver of Lorry, Tribunal
framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant along with Dr.SR
Angadi deposed as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10.
Insurer did not lead oral evidence but got marked copy of
insurance policy with consent as Ex.R1.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held that claimant failed
to establish negligence on part of lorry driver since claimant
himself, who was complainant in Ex.P2, had stated that a Lorry
had stopped for repairs and accident occurred due to rash and
riding of moped by its rider. Even police after investigation had
filed abated charge sheet against, rider of motorcycle. Tribunal
opined that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
riding of rider of moped and claimant was not entitled for
compensation from insurer of Lorry. Aggrieved, appeal was filed.
5. It was submitted that even if it were admitted that
Lorry was parked for repairs, there were no averments or
defence taken about owner/driver, having taken precautions for
safe parking, accident having occurred in month of August at
6:00 a.m., driver ought to have switched on parking
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5051
HC-KAR
lights/indicators. Since there was no material to establish same,
some extent of negligence has to be apportioned against driver
of Lorry and Tribunal was not justified in denying compensation
to claimant.
6. On other hand, Sri S.V.Yaji, learned counsel for
respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was submitted, Tribunal
had considered entire material on record in proper perspective
and after assigning reasons rejected claim petition. Said award
did not call for interference. It was also contented, when
claimant himself had filed complaint against rider of motorcycle
for rash and negligent riding and police after investigation had
filed charge sheet, though abated against deceased rider of
motorcycle, he could not be permitted to turn around and allege
negligence against Lorry driver. Therefore, dismissal of claim
petition was justified.
7. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
8. From above, point that would arise for consideration
is:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5051
HC-KAR
"Whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing claim
petition? And if not, what is quantum of compensation,
claimant would be entitled for?"
Same is answered in negative for following:
REASONS
9. At outset, occurrence of accident on 14.08.2004 and
claimant sustaining injuries therein are not in dispute. There is
also no dispute about involvement of moped on which, claimant
was pillion rider and insured Lorry in accident. Question would be
whether accident was due to negligence of driver of Lorry for
failure to take precaution while stopping vehicle on road or that
of rider of moped for riding it in rash and negligent manner.
10. Bare perusal of Ex.P2 would indicate that complaint
was given by none other than claimant who was an eye witness.
In complaint, it is unequivocally stated that Lorry had stopped
for repairs and accident occurred due to rash and negligent
riding of moped by its rider. However, in claim petition, claimant
seeks to arraign Lorry driver for negligent parking. While passing
impugned award, Tribunal has noted inconsistency and since
police after investigation had filed charge sheet against deceased
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5051
HC-KAR
rider of motorcycle, dismissed claim petition by disbelieving
claimant on negligence.
11. Though a question arose whether claimant would be
entitled proceed against owner and insurer of motorcycle, it is
seen during cross-examination of PW1, insurer has specifically
made suggestion about failure of claimant to have impleaded
owner and insurer of motorcycle. Therefore it would imply that
claimant consciously elected to pursue claim petition against
owner/insurer of Lorry. Under above circumstances, even scope
for remand on said ground would not exist. Consequently
following:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM,
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14
